zlacker

[return to "Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy"]
1. carlmr+B5[view] [source] 2026-01-12 13:03:44
>>giulio+(OP)
>The share of U.S. households reporting at least one user rose from about 11% in late 2023 to more than 16% by mid-2024.

I was wondering how you could get such a high impact overall. But it seems one in 6 households are on GLP-1 drugs in the US.

In my friend circle in Germany I don't even know one single person on this stuff.

It's insane to me that so many people need these to get off the processed foods killing them in the US.

◧◩
2. u_sama+h6[view] [source] 2026-01-12 13:07:18
>>carlmr+B5
For artificial problems, artificial solutions. I think the state of food in the US is really bad, and one cannot compare such products to the superior EU food quality standards and eating habits (and city designs) which render the incentives really perverse
◧◩◪
3. vladva+Nc[view] [source] 2026-01-12 13:39:31
>>u_sama+h6
These drugs are expensive and, at least in France, they're discussing offering them. I think this is the main reason explaining the difference in prevalence between the US and the EU.

Despite access to "superior food quality", weight issues are absolutely a problem in the EU, too. Maybe it's not at the same point as in the US, but 51% of the population of the EU (outside Ireland and Germany for some reason) are "overweight or obese" [0].

---

[0] https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/publications-communi... In French, from the ministry of health, but there's a chart which should be clear enough for everybody.

◧◩◪◨
4. u_sama+Nj[view] [source] 2026-01-12 14:12:52
>>vladva+Nc
There are valid counterarguments to the overweight values, a lot of women who might be overweight are healthy because different % of fat are acceptable depending on the structure of the body. I agree, that has to do with "malbouffe" and other lifestyle choices. As for offering them that is a nice thing, but I am curious about the mechanics (mutuelles) and such of the medicine.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Aurorn+nl[view] [source] 2026-01-12 14:20:12
>>u_sama+Nj
> a lot of women who might be overweight are healthy because different % of fat are acceptable depending on the structure of the body

This is a tired argument. Most people who have BMI in the obese range do not have one of oft-cited exceptions that make BMI an imperfect measure.

Everyone knows BMI is imperfect at this point, but the number of people who have BMI in the obesity range yet have healthy body composition is very small.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. u_sama+Jo[view] [source] 2026-01-12 14:34:44
>>Aurorn+nl
Let it be noted that I have said overweight and not obese, if you are in the obese category you are 100% unhealthy (even the bodybuilders who inject stereoirs in this category are unhealthy).
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Aurorn+cq[view] [source] 2026-01-12 14:41:56
>>u_sama+Jo
It doesn’t change the argument. Most people who have BMI in the overweight range do not have healthy weights.

I say this as someone who did enough weightlifting to be in the overweight BMI range with a low percent of body fat (no steroids involved). Trust me when I say it’s a lot of work to get there. It’s not a category that includes a lot of people or invalidates the measure.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. carlmr+GZ2[view] [source] 2026-01-13 09:58:46
>>Aurorn+cq
Thank you, this is what I constantly say. For population statistics, BMI is nigh perfect, since it's much easier to gather than more accurate data points, and the number of exceptions are super small.

I know very fit people that still fall well in the BMI 20-25 range. Most around 23. You have to be very focused on natural bodybuilding for years if you want to become an outlier on BMI.

Or some combination with being super short or super tall. But this again affects a tiny minority.

[go to top]